MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2621758445 · doi:10.1002/hon.2437_99

INTEGRATED ANALYSIS: OUTCOMES OF IBRUTINIB‐TREATED PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC LYMPHOCYTIC LEUKEMIA/SMALL LYMPHOCYTIC LEUKEMIA (CLL/SLL) WITH HIGH‐RISK PROGNOSTIC FACTORS

2017· article· en· W2621758445 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas J. Kipps, Graeme Fraser, Steven Coutré, Jennifer R. Brown, Jacqueline C. Barrientos, Paul M. Barr, John C. Byrd, Susan O’Brien, M.S. Dilhuydy, Peter Hillmen, Ulrich Jaeger, Carol Moreno, Paula Cramer, Stephan Stilgenbauer, A.A. Chanan‐Khan, Michelle Mahler, Mariya Salman, Minghua Cheng, Anil Londhe, Joi Ninomoto, Angela Howes, Danelle F. James, Michael Hallek

Bibliographic record

VenueHematological Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityJuravinski Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIbrutinibInternal medicineChronic lymphocytic leukemiaIGHV@OfatumumabOncologyChlorambucilLeukemiaUnivariate analysisBendamustineMultivariate analysisChemotherapyCyclophosphamide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: In phase 3 studies, ibrutinib (ibr) was superior to ofatumumab in relapsed/refractory (R/R) CLL/SLL or chlorambucil in treatment (tx)-naïve (TN) CLL/SLL. Ibr + bendamustine/rituximab (BR) was superior to BR in R/R CLL/SLL. Clinical outcomes of pts in these 3 studies were examined to determine the impact of certain prognostic risk factors other than del17p. Methods: RESONATE: R/R CLL/SLL, ibr 420 mg/d until progressive disease (PD) or ofatumumab (≤24 wk). RESONATE-2: TN CLL/SLL (no del17p) ≥65 y, ibr 420 mg/d until PD or chlorambucil (≤12 cycles). HELIOS: R/R CLL/SLL (no del17p), BR (≤6 cycles) ± ibr 420 mg/d followed by ibr or placebo until PD. Data from 3 studies (N = 1238) were pooled to analyze outcomes with/without genomic risk factors IGHV, del11q, trisomy 12, or complex karyotype (CK). Covariates for a multivariate analysis (MVA) for progression-free and overall survival (PFS, OS): the 4 genomic risk factors, age, sex, ECOG PS, cytopenias, LDH, bulky disease, and number of prior therapies. Results: Median follow-up was 21 mo for both ibr- and comparator-tx pts. In each subgroup, PFS, OS, and response rates were higher in ibr- than comparator-tx pts, regardless of these genomic risk factors. By univariate analysis (UVA, Table) in ibr-tx pts, genomic risk factors were not associated with shorter PFS or OS, and del11q was associated with a trend of longer PFS and OS. In comparator-tx pts, unmutated (U)-IGHV, del11q, and CK were associated with shorter PFS, and U-IGHV and CK with shorter OS. By MVA for PFS/OS, in ibr-tx pts (without del17p), only ≥1 prior tx was associated with shorter PFS and OS. Age ≥ 65 and elevated LDH were associated with shorter OS, and del11q with a trend of longer OS. In comparator-tx pts, ≥1 prior tx, U-IGHV, del11q, CK, male sex, and bulky disease ≥5 cm were associated with shorter PFS; CK, male sex, bulky disease ≥5 cm, ECOG PS ≥1 and elevated LDH were associated with shorter OS. Cumulative rates of adverse events were similar in pts with/without genomic factors and reflect a median exposure of 19-20 mo for ibr-tx pts and 5-10 mo for comparator-tx pts. Conclusions: In UVA and MVA for ibr-tx pts, no clear associations were found for U-IGHV, del11q, trisomy 12, and CK with poor outcomes; del11q associated with trends of longer PFS and OS in UVA, and longer OS in MVA. In comparator-tx pts, U-IGHV, del11q, and CK associated with shorter PFS, OS, and/or lower response rate. Results suggest that risk factors associated with poor outcomes with chemotherapy have less relevance with ibr. CRR, complete response rate; HR, hazard ratio; NE, not evaluable; OR, odds ratio; ORR, overall response rate. *For IGHV, indicates mutated IGHV. **18 mo PFS rate was 8%. Keywords: chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL); ibrutinib; small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHematological OncologySame topicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchFrench-language works237,207